Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
=============================
Good reminder. Thanks.
That seems pretty close to a superstition to me.
It is called a therory to expose people who do not understand science.
The theory behind this is that people who do not understand science will apply the laymen's defintion of "theory" to the word and thus reveal their lack of understanding about science.
So here's the facts guys, whether you like 'em or not. 99.9% of biologists consider evolution to be the bed-rock of biology. The basic principles are even being applied to other fields, like economics, in which self-organizing systems are an important area of study. (You guys are conservatives, right? You do believe in self-organizing economies instead of command-and-control ones?)
But you guys think some double-talking pseudo-scientists should get equal time in science classrooms. Hey, it's your call to support such silliness. But I'm telling you - as Arnold would say "This does not help our mission". It just brands you to the rest of the world as kooks, including to many conservatives and co-religionists.
We've got a lot on our plate. A federal welfare state that must be fixed or it's going to doom our kids to poverty. A large population of religious fanatics anxious to blow us all up in exchange for 72 virgins. But you want to spend your time promoting something that even your allies don't believe.
Look, we've got an educational system that can't even teach basic math and English. And you're worried about whether Sunday School stories get told in science class. Sorry, but I consider your priorities clearly out of whack.
Now, you can go ahead and sputter all you like from this point. I long ago learned not to argue with people about their faith. But I still think you ought to rethink your priorities, even if you'll never agree about evolution.
Piltdown man says, "Yes!"
Not sure where you learned that a fact is either true or false. Was that at a liberal school?
While I don't believe that creationism should be taught in schools, why is there such a need to teach evolution at all?
We can study extinct species without saying "this species begat this one". The jury is still out. Scientists in different nations cannot agree on where man originated or how he came to populate different continents. There may have been some foot travel but there may also have been some boat voyages.
You are right that there are a lot of other things to teach children. So teach them those things that are known rather than those things that are suspected.
Is much time spent on the big bang theory in elementary and high schools?
How about man made global warming which is also a "scientifically" supported theory in some minds?
I would like to propose a theory about the degree of correctness of the bible. The bible says the ratio of the circumference to diameter is 3.0. It is a modern "law or tautology" that the ratio is 3.14159 (+ a little more).
If we divide 3 by 3.14159 we should get an actual measure of the correctness of the bible. This demonstrates that bible is 95.5% accurate.
If we assume that the a part of the 4.5% error is in the creation story, we can put these crevo debates to bed forever.
Nice post- they say I'm a Troll cause im new to FR and live by science, but you said it all brother.
You CAN be a conservative and still understand the scientific method.
You cant just pick and choose which parts of objective reality appeal to your politics- talk about relativism !
Show me any evidence against evolution derived from the scientific method, and I'll gladly agree that it did not happen.
Here come the cranks !
How about it ?
The math that says there was an inflation in the early universe is what put the cameras on Titan- do you think thats a European hoax ?
Excuse met but -- if you can repeat (replicate) a cause-&-effect experiment - it isn't religion, it's an empirical law.
Religion asks about (& answers) the question of The FIRST CAUSE of everything (all matter, life, etc.)
That "cause" can never be empirically proven -- and never will be.
Even if we saw an angel, -- a scientist would wonder, "I wonder what THAT is made of, and where it came from (cause of it."
So, evolution or science studies localized cause and effect, while religion address The FIRST (Original) cause of everything.
These two endeavors are not inconsistent, but -- they are different kinds of knowledge, or understanding.
I'm an atheist, and really have no interest in speculating about the "first" or original Cause. But others are certainly entitled to engage in that speculation, in a congregation or group, on Sundays, if the want to.
I see no contradition between being a scientist all week long, and going to church on Sunday. I just have no interest or need to quiet my mind, by pursuing the latter.
But it's a free country....
-4Liberty
I beleive that creationism violates the liberal commandment: "Thou shalt have no other god ahead of atheism and secularism."
The Big Bang is not disputed in classrooms as much as evolution is but I asked is it presented in elementary and high school at all.
What was there before the Big Bang? Before "time" began. What was there before there was a "there"?
=============================
They have a TRINITY . .
I'm glad you explained that therory (sic) of that theory to we unscientific rubes out her in flyoverland.
I guess that means to "scientists" plain words don't mean what plain words mean.
Thanks for the tip!
Is Piltdown Man the "National Guard" memos of another era?
How does the scientific method disprove the Genesis account of creation? The scientific method deals with the how of the here and now. How does the scientific method apply to creation? Without eyewitnesses to the event of creation, we are dealing with faith.
"Look, we've got an educational system that can't even teach basic math and English. And you're worried about whether Sunday School stories get told in science class. Sorry, but I consider your priorities clearly out of whack."
As always any post involving evoltution eventually descends into what is or is not true.
What is an empirical fact is that this judge found an establishment clause violation based on his opinion that the sticker may create an impression of religious advocation. Whether one does or does not believe in the THEORY of evolution on a MACRO level is immaterial here. The question is whether the judge could assert any religious references in the sticker's language. He could not and did not. It is, under the legal question, irrelevant whether any creationist or intelligent design proponents supported the sticker's inclusion.
My opinion is that this is an attempt to create a precedent that allows a judge to apply impressions of a statute, act, sticker etc. as a bonafide rationale to invoke the establishment clause. This is the same type of judge that helped create rulings that have legitimized and enhanced hate crime/sexual harrassment/racial intimidation laws that have the lowered threshhold of "impression."
Your feeling that this is nit picking because all of the other failures of the educational system strikes me as being completely blind to the dangers that such rulings have and will create.
This judge's ruling is Orwellian to the core.
They obviously haven't met my "relatives".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.